Did the NYT spike an ACORN story to benefit Obama?

posted at 11:36 am on March 31, 2009 by Ed Morrissey

ACORN says no. The Gray Lady won’t talk about it. But The Bulletin says, Res ipsa loquitur — the thing speaks for itself. They accuse the New York Times of deliberately spiking information that tied ACORN corruption to the campaign of Barack Obama, and doing so for political purposes — and point to Congressional testimony for proof:

A lawyer involved with legal action against Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now (ACORN) told a House Judiciary subcommittee on March 19 The New York Times had killed a story in October that would have shown a close link between ACORN, Project Vote and the Obama campaign because it would have been a “a game changer.”

Heather Heidelbaugh, who represented the Pennsylvania Republican State Committee in the lawsuit against the group, recounted for the ommittee what she had been told by a former ACORN worker who had worked in the group’s Washington, D.C. office. The former worker, Anita Moncrief, told Ms. Heidelbaugh last October, during the state committee’s litigation against ACORN, she had been a “confidential informant for several months to The New York Times reporter, Stephanie Strom.”

Ms. Moncrief had been providing Ms. Strom with information about ACORN’s election activities. Ms. Strom had written several stories based on information Ms. Moncrief had given her.

During her testimony, Ms. Heidelbaugh said Ms. Moncrief had told her The New York Times articles stopped when she revealed that the Obama presidential campaign had sent its maxed-out donor list to ACORN’s Washington, D.C. office. … “Upon learning this information and receiving the list of donors from the Obama campaign, Ms. Strom reported to Ms. Moncrief that her editors at The New York Times wanted her to kill the story because, and I quote, “it was a game changer.”’

The connections between ACORN and the Obama campaign would have violated federal election law. McCain-Feingold specifically prohibits coordination between campaigns and outside groups during an election. In Obama’s case, the coordination would have been a little strange, anyway, as Obama was raising tons of cash and organizing well on his own. ACORN certainly helped, but explicitly tying his campaign to an organization under investigation for fraud in several states could have done more damage than it was worth.

Those violations would have only cost the Obama campaign some cash, which it has still not stopped raising even more than two months after the inauguration. The real story here is the New York Times’ alleged editorial bias in support of Obama. By editorial bias, I do not mean the editorials that appear on the opinion pages, but the deliberate decision to report only news that would be favorable to Obama, and to bury news that would hurt their chosen presidential candidate. It’s the kind of bias that critics frequently accuse news organizations of having, but rarely have proof as cut-and-dried as this appears to be.

Is that what happened here? The Times may claim that they didn’t have enough corroboration to run the story. That didn’t stop them from running a despicable hit piece on John McCain alleging a sexual affair between the Senator and a lobbyist, one which they eventually had to retract after getting sued by Vicki Iseman. They sent reporters to Wasilla to dig up dirt on Sarah Palin, but somehow neglected to cover her exoneration on ethics charges, as The Bulletin notes.

Unlike with the Iseman non-story, in which the Times used two disgruntled and unnamed former aides, The Bulletin has a public witness testifying under oath about the Paper of Record’s political machinations. The Times has given a non-response response. I’d call this a clear loss for the Times, and further proof of its descent into political hackery — this time covering up corruption in high political circles for its own policy preferences.

Blowback

Note from Hot Air management: This section is for comments from Hot Air's community of registered readers. Please don't assume that Hot Air management agrees with or otherwise endorses any particular comment just because we let it stand. A reminder: Anyone who fails to comply with our terms of use may lose their posting privilege.

Isn’t this where our resident liberal trolls come in and proclaim how this is all wrong, and our media are biased towards conservatives? That suppressing links from Obama to ACORN is really a gift to McCain and the vast reichwing conspiracy?

Come on, DTMH, Drywall, etc: Spin this one, you liberal punks. Tell me how the NYT is so fair and balanced. You say they are, so prove it here.

One more chunk of evidence to a thesis many of us have between Barack Obama and ACORN. Though, unless you follow politics closely, I’m not exactly sure how the average Joe receives and understands this whole business with ACORN.

“But let’s be clear and be honest with each other about something fundamental to this race, which is this: Whatever the New York Times once was, it is today not by an standard a journalistic organization. It is a pro-Obama advocacy organization that every day attacks the McCain campaign, attacks Sen. McCain, attacks Gov. Palin, and excuses Sen. Obama. There is no level of public vetting with regard to Sen. Obama’s record, his background, his past statements. There is no level of outrage directed at his deceitful ads. This is an organization that is completely, totally, 150 percent in the tank for the Democratic candidate, which is their prerogative to be, but let’s not be dishonest and call it something other than what it is.”

The next question is, did the McCain campaign know about this and if not, why didn’t they. And if they did, why didn’t they use this information.

ignorantapathy on March 31, 2009 at 11:40 AM

Punching Bag McCain exhorted us to stand up in fight while he rolled over and played dead so that (1) he’d still get invited to lunch by his Senate colleagues and (2) he’d still get invited on Meet the Press.

In Obama’s case, the coordination would have been a little strange, anyway, as Obama was raising tons of cash and organizing well on his own. ACORN certainly helped, but explicitly tying his campaign to an organization under investigation for fraud in several states could have done more damage than it was worth.

A campaign that was willing to shut of credit card verification software and accept thousands of contributions from fictitious people (who may not even have been US citizens) may decide that there was minimal risk in sharing with Acorn. The press had already proven that the campaign was exempt from scrutiny.

This explains the NY Times accusing McCain of having “an improper relationship” with that young blond lobbyist, their hit piece against Cindy McCain (What did she do to deserve that?) and knowing about but refusing to report something negative about our savior President Obama.

right. how reliable is this source? and what are the chances that the NYT editors would just tell the reporter that they’re not willing to publish a “game changer”?

sesquipedalian on March 31, 2009 at 11:46 AM

It’s not like the New York Times has earned the benefit of the doubt given their recent behavior. This is the same newspaper that posted several front page articles on their Sunday edition about Palin’s wardrobe.

The Bulletin has a public witness testifying under oath about what she heard from a disgruntled employee about what the employee had heard from the NYT reporter about what the reporter had heard from her editors about the Paper of Record’s political machinations.

ACORN certainly helped, but explicitly tying his campaign to an organization under investigation for fraud in several states could have done more damage than it was worth.

This reflects the arrogance of Obama’s campaign. Just as he whined about race without having the media throw it back in his face, Obama knew this kind of conduct would never get reported by the media. And if reported, it would be spun as, say, some faux outrage or some racist finger-pointing by McCain’s campaign.

Punching Bag McCain exhorted us to stand up in fight while he rolled over and played dead so that (1) he’d still get invited to lunch by his Senate colleagues and (2) he’d still get invited on Meet the Press.

BuckeyeSam on March 31, 2009 at 11:45 AM

I believed that speech. I was moved by that speech.

And then he betrayed all of us. I knew he would do it, too. That’s the worst part, the willing blindness. (The problem with Obama supporters, as it turns out)

We all know/knew about Obambi/ACORN. The fact that no one in the media steps is the issue. As to the “the old grey hag” now relegated to the toilet paper aisle, this is just a prime example of how what goes around, comes around. Acting in traitorous, seditious ways eventually catches up with you. How many lives have they put in jeopardy over the last few years? How is it that they think they are above the law? How is it that they believe that THEY, not We the People, should determine elections? Obama is a LIAR and is brazen about it. They lie for him, and are brazen about it. They shirk their Constitutional mandate to watchdog government as opposed to aid and abet criminal behavior. I’ll be so happy when they all have to apply for jobs at Obama Wind Farms turning prop cranks. Grey Lady down? I hope so, for good. Last nail in the socialist coffin.

I’ll believe it when I see it. Maybe the “historians” will eventually catch the NYT but no one else gives a rat’s ass.
If the Times doesn’t do a mea culpa it isn’t real for most of the country, so it’s not real.

right. how reliable is this source?
Well, unnamed sources were enough to run an “improper relationship” piece on McCain. One would think that an identified individual testifying before Congress constitutes news.

The real concern is that the allegation about the NYT is hearsay. Perhaps someone will follow up with Moncrief or Strom, but I’m not holding my breath.

obladioblada on March 31, 2009 at 11:53 AM

NYT “Public Editor” Clark Howell had an intersting piece on Sunday about his paper’s use of un-named sources. He said they used them all the time, especially in stories coming out of D.C.

The only way the Times would run this story is if they wanted O’bama to fail. But since they officially endorsed him, that’s a technical impossibility.

I think it is apparent why Chi Times and NYT and LAT, and others are going out of business…they can’twon’t report NEWS.

right2bright on March 31, 2009 at 12:46 PM

FIFY.

A prime example of the NY Fishwrap ignoring a story to benefit one of their political whores: according to the Fed, the 1990s economic recovery actually began in March of 1991. They didn’t get around to reporting it until 9 years later.

If they had been honest and reported it at the time it happened, Bill Clinton would never have won election (18 months after the recovery began) based on his false allegation that his opponent couldn’t fix the economy.

The economy had been fixed. But the Times refused to report it, solely to get their boy elected.

sesquipedalian, I expect we’ll be finding out more about this in the days and weeks to come. If you are truly looking for information on whether this is true and not just parroting some lefty talking point, you’ll probably see it, likely not in the NYT or on CNN or PMSNBC.

I’m not very interested in Ashley Biden’s cocaine use (assuming the woman in the video is in fact Ms. Biden). But then, I wasn’t very interested in the Bush twins’ underage drinking or the drug-related arrest of Sarah Palin’s daughter’s boyfriend’s mother, either. Yet both were major news stories. Does anyone seriously believe that if there had been a video of Barbara or Jenna Bush snorting cocaine during their father’s administration, the press would have refused to write about it?

It’s nice that our newspapers have decided to respect the privacy of people like a Vice President’s children. It would be even nicer if they extended the same courtesy to members of both parties.

Have all of Bernie’s books. Anyone that turns their back on a lucrative career at CBS for pervasive Liberal bias and takes them on as a one-man-wrecking machine is not only a friend of mine, but a genuine hero.

Wish I could tell you where, but since I’m way in the minority (conservatives, natch) and untenured, I run too much of a risk. I can tell you that I will also require my students to read the U.S. Constitution. Surprisingly, most people have no idea what’s in it.

This (further) proves my point about the right blogosphere… we who write and comment on the news are doing just that… commenting on what THEY decide is news… we’re playing on their ground.

The AP, Reuters, CBS, NBC and ABC might have dwindling numbers of adherents… but they STILL decide what is “news” and all we do is react to the stories as they see (spin) them.

Look at NOLA vs. Fargo. We spent a year reacting to millions of FEMA and 9th District stories which served the Left… in Fargo we react to the weather reports. They decided FEMA was a disaster and that Katrina would define Bush… we reacted.

Good point. We have a black supremacist sitting in the Oval Office who 1) does nothing to help bitter clingers in KY and IN or 2) tells those on the Red River not to panic. And this is not even an issue.

I effing hate him. Hopefully Sarkozy will further humiliate him in London, maybe by insulting Lt. Worf.

Leave the NYT alone. It is not easy making their decisions. There are so many stories and it is hard to pick and choose. You really expect they could just throw away the important articles and photos regarding McCain’s “affair” with a pretty lobbyist? You wouldn’t expect them to eliminate the far-reaching Trig Palin baby-mamma speculation!

Well, in fairness, they could have made room by not publishing all those Edwards affair stories that took up so much news space in their paper for weeks on end;)

I’d offer a plea to Heaven that this paper fails quickly and completely, but Zero would then simply buy it and place it under Propaganda Department control and the paper would continue with very few changes. ‘~’